"Gender is a social construct."
"Men are the sole perpetrators of Domestic Violence."
"Marriage is akin to slavery for women."
You know them all. But have a look at how this whole system works. It works on the basis of Dialectical Arguments. Basically, it is set up to work like the legal system, it is all based on precedents. The fembots have convinced the masses of their foundational argument, and all of their subsequent arguments are based on the "precedent" at the very bottom.
The problem that we keep having, is we are arguing about the thing at the "top." By the time we are done defending our position against the "new" fembot argument, 10 other things have cropped up in the meantime.
I wonder what would happen if we stopped arguing "at the top," and started arguing "at the bottom?"
"Gender is a social construct?"
REALLY?
How about we divide gay activists from feminism by demanding that "Gender" actually is a social construct? Hmmm... You can't be BORN GAY if Gender is a social construct, n'est pas?
